DRC: Let’s Be Frank about Dodd-Frank

On Aug 7, freelance journalist and blogger David Aronson published an important opinion piece in the New York Times on the effects and ramifications of the Dodd-Frank Act. I congratulate and commend him for a clear and lucid position. The op-ed has unleashed a healthy, robust, and at time acrimonious debate online about the meaning of this legislation. Blogs are beaming with commentary and the Enough Project has been on the defensive with a response in the Huffington Post by Sasha Lezhnev. David deserves all the credit for this discussion.

Like the activists who lobbied for the legislation, Dodd-Frank assumes that minerals such as gold, wolframite, coltan and tin, which are extracted from areas under the control of armed groups, drive the conflict, and therefore, curbing the trade would bring peace to the region. Organizations like Global Witness, the Enough Project and its partners, that have invested considerable resources into this issue, contributed to this oversimplified reasoning. Proceeds from mineral trade provide the militias the financial means to acquire more firepower, they argue, which in turn perpetrates the conflict.

The historical truth, however, is different. Activists have reversed the cause-to-effect sequence of developments. In the Kivus, the local economy rested on agriculture and commodity trading, which suffered severe setbacks at the onset of the war in the late 90’s as the conflict ushered a rapid destruction of farms, fields and road infrastructure. The ensuing proliferation of militias, which exacted (and still do) a heavy toll on the peasants and commodity traders, drove the populations off the fields into the emerging artisanal mining.

In eastern Congo, from Butembo in North Kivu to Nzibira in the hills of South Kivu, thousands of families now live off this informal mineral trade, which generates between $300 million and $1.4 billion a year. The long supply chain ensures that people who would otherwise be unemployed and starve have a minimal income. These people, however, are likely to pay a high price for the legislation and lose their livelihood. Back in September 2010, they experienced the effects of a mining moratorium for the first time. In an attempt to pre-empt the US legislation and its proponents, Congolese President Joseph Kabila suspended artisanal mining operations in the region. Expectedly, the outcome was devastating for the population, as the thousands of Congolese who depend on this trade could not find work in a country with 8.9 percent and 81.7 percent unemployment and underemployment rates, respectively. Army units deployed to protect the mining areas turned their assignment into a business opportunity and joined the black market trade. Six months later, unable to enforce his decision, Kabila lifted the ban.

Currently, it is nearly impossible to separate clean ore from bloody minerals imported from the region. While the concerned industries figure out a credible certification process, anticipated compliance with the legislation increases transaction cost in one of the world’s most corrupt countries. In order to protect their reputation, the electronics and high technology industries contemplate boycotting minerals from the region. The decision by US companies to either scale back or stop sourcing ore from eastern Congo means that the people of the Kivus are likely to experience the same devastating blow that hurt the local economy when President Kabila imposed the mining moratorium in September 2010.

The government’s inability to assert state authority is the real cause of the insecurity that set off the emergence of militias and sustains the plunder of natural resources. With the collapse of the state, old, latent community grievances stemming from land disputes, demographic pressures, ethnic tensions, and control of resources and trading routes turned eastern Congo into a tinderbox. Ambitious demagogues only need to embrace a cause and find a sponsor — a community, business or political elite or a state — to start a militia. The three main militias, FDLR, CNDP and PARECO, have exploited these dormant grievances and benefitted from either community or state support. The pattern remains the same for the three dozen smaller militias that operate in the area.

Mineral exploitation, the object of activism and legislation, is but one source of revenue for these armed groups. They literally rule over the territories they control, taxing every economic activity and terrorizing the civilians into submission. Losing access to the mines will marginally affect their capacity to generate funds, considering that weapons and ammunitions are relatively inexpensive. In other words, if there were no minerals, the conflict would still rage on as armed groups would find other sources of revenue. As long as the government is incapable to impose its authority and address the various grievances, the region will not know peace.

The government has failed to build a professional army, perhaps the single most important element in ensuring Congo’s territorial integrity and the security of its citizens and coveted natural resources. President Kabila continues to deal with militias in the east in the same way that he did during the transition period—co-opting warlords into the government and security institutions. Even as militia leaders get promoted into the Congolese army, they remain rooted geographically in their area of influence and continue to perpetrate horrific abuses on civilians with impunity. In short, the national army is little more than a patchwork of militias with parallel command structures and no incentive to change.

The predatory designs of neighboring Rwanda and Uganda also fuel the volatile situation. Both Rwanda and Uganda have invaded Congo twice, with continued incursions into eastern Congo where they still support militias. Several UN reports have linked both countries to Congolese militias and the looting of resources. Furthermore, Uganda, Rwanda, Burundi and Tanzania benefit from the illicit mineral trade in eastern Congo as they serve as primary export routes. And while Uganda, Rwanda and Burundi have no gold, diamond or tantalum deposits of significance, they have become important exporters of these minerals. In the past, high level government officials and senior army officers were implicated in this trade. Whether this is still the case today is unclear. It seems, nevertheless, highly unlikely that these countries could export such large amounts of minerals without the collusion of government officials. Whether these leaders are actively sourcing these goods or simply turning a blind eye to the trade matters little to the bottom line: the result is still the same.

While the SEC is working out the details of the regulations, Rwanda actively capitalizes on the failure of the Congolese State. On May 13, 2011, Bloomberg reported that Rajesh Exports Ltd., India’s largest jewelry manufacturer might invest as much as $1 billion over the next five years to develop Rwanda’s gold industry, including a refinery, and a diamond-trading business. With limited gold deposits, and no proven diamond reserves, Rwanda is likely predicating its agreement with Rajesh on DRC’s resources. In the absence of a strong Congolese state to protect its interests, Dodd-Frank will effectively certify the looting of Congo’s minerals.

Oversimplification of issues often produces inadequate, counterproductive policies. Dodd-Frank and its proponents who seek to curb US companies penalize the people of eastern Congo, but do little to curtail the militias and their backers. We know the primary supporters of militias, whether in DRC, in neighboring countries or overseas. We also know the primary export routes and which neighbors profit from this trade. It is troubling that the legislation uses a shotgun approach to the illicit mineral trade quandary and inculpates all of DRC’s ten neigbhors. For instance, the legislation treats Zambia, a mineral rich country that is not involved with militias in eastern Congo, but borders DRC to the south, with the same suspicion as Rwanda, Uganda, Burundi and Tanzania, which are the primary export routes.

The proponents of Dodd-Frank present the issue in such a way that one may think that eastern Congo is a sovereign, independent country. The legislation fails to place the problems of the Kivus in the context of a national crisis that requires robust engagement at the national level. The Enough Project has been eager to display a letter of endorsement signed by 35 Kivu-based civil society groups. That is hardly a buy-in by the Congolese at the national level.

Unless Dodd-Frank is about US consumers and companies, the activists and their partners in Congress should confront the real causes of the conflict, which are failed leadership and corruption in Kinshasa, and predatory policies of Rwanda and Uganda who destabilize eastern Congo while benefiting from the trade. Cleaning up eastern Congo requires the courage to denounce, and pressure all guilty parties through a variety of means, including International Criminal Court indictments, freezing the assets of militia leaders and their backers, and diplomatic pressure on the governments of DRC, Uganda, Rwanda, Burundi and Tanzania.

Real change will only happen when a combination of bold measures is part of a comprehensive policy that addresses the crisis’ multifaceted nature as was done with blood diamonds for Sierra Leone and Liberia. These measures included UK-sponsored military intervention and state-building initiatives, the restoration of state authority, the dismantlement of militias, the Kimberly process and the pursuit of justice, which eventually led to the arrest of Liberia’s former President Charles Taylor. Pretending otherwise in DRC would be disingenuous.

Incidentally, the declared mission of the Enough Project is to end genocide and crimes against humanity. No genocide has been declared in DRC, but over the years human rights organizations have produced several credible reports of mass killings and crimes against humanity perpetrated by different actors in Congo. The most detailed of these reports, the UN Mapping Report, was published in October 2010 by the High Commission for Human Rights. Analysts may disagree on the exact number of the victims of the conflict in DRC, but most of them agree that hundreds of thousands of Congolese have died as a consequence of conflict. So far, however, the Enough Project’s response to these reports has been tepid at best.

Dodd-Frank hammers on the symptoms of a crisis, but shies away from the real fight for good governance, justice and rule of law.

Thanks so much for this strong and clear contribution to the ongoing conversation.
Perhaps a look at Ituri and role of the UN there could be instructional.
If I am not mistaken, the UN contingent in the DRC is still one of the largest ever deployed. But it was when they were reinforced in Ituri and given a stronger mandate that they were able to successfully transform that district and impose what has been a relatively stable peace.
While the long term solution must be reform of Congolese security forces, in the interim the UN needs to step it up, arrest Bosco, clear the military out of the mines, and generally clean things up.
They did more than that in Ituri.

Well done Mr. Dizolele. Great peace and kudos to David Aronson for voicing the silent concerns of so many. To see the way his op-ed unleashed a debate and continue to circulate online makes you wonder why some are not at ease with his opinion and it seems, wishes he never wrote the piece. Why do the people at the Enough Project think that they hold the truth and the holy truth about this issue?
By the way, did you know that when the Clinton administration allowed Rwanda and Uganda to invade the DRC then Zaire John Prendergast of Enough Project was the director for African Affairs at the National Security Council? What role did Mr. Prendergast played in weakening the DRC while at the NSC and what role are the people at Enough Project playing today?
The little I know, Enough Project is a project dedicated to ending genocide and crimes against humanity, and preventing them from occurring in the future. Now, how many mass graves, massacres and other atrocities or dead bodies will feet the Enough Project description in the Congo? Why this obstination on solving the “conflict mineral” while we know the route out of the said minerals and who benefits from them but do nothing to deter their activities?
Activism is good but not for the wrong raisons. Unfortunately, for Congo it has become like a celebrity contest to some, and a bread winner to others. To those who really care about Congo and her People, well, they are said to be naïve, or they just don’t get it and should step aside in silence while the Enough Project and others are looking to certify the looting of Congo’s mineral. That is wrong. The Enough Project should recognise that they do not hold the truth about Congo. But, should they really care about Congo and her people, let’s arrest some big fishes in Kinshasa, Kigali, Uganda and Goma while finding mechanisms that will allow the Congolese people to express themselves on these coming elections. Without a Congo that will first aim to protect her people and interests, no legislature voted on in the US, France, the U.K or Belgium will do the trick. Only a strong and functioning Congolese state will protect her interests.

I don’t believe that folks at Enough believe they hold the truth. They simply have a strong belief in what will bring about peace in the Eastern Congo and the conflict minerals attachment they have is a tactic of a broader strategy.

I fully agree with your idea that it is ultimately up to the Congolese themselves to bring about a better nation.

But does that mean they don’t need allies in America?

I always find it odd when I hear skepticism about American involvement from the grassroots as it relates to the Congo. As a Jewish American, it often reminds me of Israeli friends who often claim of American Jewish activists “you are too naive about Palestinians, we can’t live in peace, please stop advocating for a two state solution”. I think that attitude is arrogant and dangerous and as citizens we have every right to petition our government on how to make Israel or Congo better places- afterall, our tax dollars support both countries. My Israeli brothers and sisters have NO idea how to advocate for change in America so I generally take those comments with a grain of salt.

Finally, I have searched long and hard for cold, hard evidence that, as many Congolese believe, America seeks to have Uganda and Rwanda as the main powers in the region and- as you claim- “allowed” these two to invade the Congo. I have not found absolute evidence to prove this claim. And by evidence I mean something official from the American government stating this as the expressed policy of America. There is plenty of such proof about the CIA involvement in the assassination of Lumumba- but nothing about this common claim by some Congolese. If it is not stated as the policy than, in my view, it is mere heresay and rumours.

I find this claim to be somewhat akin to this:

“If I gave you my gun to watch over while on vacation, and your son finds it and shoots the man cheating with his girlfriend, am I to be blamed for this?”

No court in the world would convict me for this crime so, again, I question this claim.

Rwanda and Uganda militaries receive support from Americans because they help keep the peace in Darfur and are assisting with fighting Al-Shabab and the LRA. For reasons that are expressly their own, Congo’s leaders (and Kenyans and Tanzanians) have chosen NOT to assist here. Outside of this, Americans have no real interests in Central Africa.

The efforts of Enough and others is to develop a broad group of average Americans to care about a better foreign policy towards the Congo that goes beyond these type of narrow interests. This is our right as citizens and while we may not understand every element we do seek out a diverse array of Congolese opinion leaders to get a balanced picture of what would be helpful in their efforts so as to inform our own. Do we always succeed? No, but we do try and will continue to try.

I thank Mvemba for this blog and his long service as a journalist to inform Americans about the Congo.

Melanie
I don’t see anywhere in my post where I say that Congo does not need allies in America.
As much as you believe that folks at enough simply have a strong belief in what will bring about peace in Eastern Congo, is it possible for them to be wrong, and that somebody else might have a different view on Congo? Are people like David Aronson allowed to see things differently without being attacked by Enough? Is there anything in Aronson’s op-ed worth looking at closely and reconsider Enough’s position?
I find it arrogant on your part and on the part of enough folks to suggest that everybody should follow their strong believes in what will bring about peace in the Eastern Congo. More arrogant and even troubling is “I have searched long and hard for cold, hard evidence that, as many Congolese believe, America seeks to have Uganda and Rwanda as the main powers in the region”. First of all, who told you I was Congolese and second, does it mean that since you did not find absolute evidence to prove the claim, nobody else could? I guess only you can.
Melanie or Melissa, can you go back to my posting and show us where I suggest that America seeks to have Uganda and Rwanda as the main powers in the region? It is not polite to put words into people’s mouth my dear or maybe you wanted to show that Congolese are emotional and just can’t get it. How disdained of you?
Since you seem to be an expert on expressed policy of America, can you tell us what was the expressed policy of America when Congo was invaded in 1996 and what was not the expressed policy? I know for a fact that neither Rwanda nor Uganda was helping to keep the peace in Darfur or assisting with fighting Al-Shabab and the LRA.
By the way, did you know that Eastern Congo is part of a country called the Democratic Republic of Congo? Any advocacy efforts or policy focusing on just that part of the country will only lead to narrow results. It is my view and the view of many other tax payers exercising their rights as citizens that whatever is happening in the East is the result of what is not happening in the rest of the country. So, I invite you and since you agreed fully with my idea that it is ultimately up to Congolese themselves to bring about a better nation, to bring all your folks from Enough with their rights as citizens to invest their power and energy in advocating for a viable state in the DRC. The time is right. The November elections will give Congolese an opportunity to express themselves and choose their leaders. If we get this right, then we wouldn’t need any Dodd-Frank legislation to protect Congo’s interests. There will be a Congolese parliament that will be doing just that and I don’t see any narrow interests in that endeavor.
We know who the criminals are and where they are. Let’s arrest them and let’s not rush to certify the looting of Congo’s mineral as that will be just serving narrow interests.

1. You may address me either way. My first name is Melanie and my middle and most used name is Melissa. The google account I posted with states my first name but I signed it as Melissa because that is how I choose to be addressed. Again, feel free to call me either one.

2. I served, for over 18 years, as a lead staffer on the Senate Intelligence Committee in the United States Senate. I have a security clearance and used to work for Senator Bob Graham of Florida. To be very clear, I have seen with my own eyes classified documents on virtually everything the American government has pursued as foreign policy. I can assure you that there is nothing in any of these documents that even hint at policy that seeks to compromise the territorial integrity of the Congo nor encourage Rwanda and Uganda to be overlords in the region. Can classified documents be doctored? Ofcourse they can but only for the most sensitive issues (like Iraq) and none of the documents I have seen of the Congo going back to the 1980’s are considered, and thus classified, as “sensitive”. If you have other evidence please do offer it up but again there is no evidence from this claim. As our President is fond of saying, you are allowed to have your own opinion but you are never allowed to have your facts. In your post you made a statement that is riddled with half truths:

“By the way, did you know that when the Clinton administration allowed Rwanda and Uganda to invade the DRC then Zaire John Prendergast of Enough Project was the director for African Affairs at the National Security Council? What role did Mr. Prendergast played in weakening the DRC while at the NSC and what role are the people at Enough Project playing today?”

You are making two false claims here. The first, is that Clinton “allowed” Rwanda and Uganda to invade and the second is implying that John, while director at NSC, played a role in destabilizing the DRC. Rwanda and Uganda invaded in 1998 but John only worked at NSC from the end of 1996 to the end of 1997. How do I know? I met him during this time. That particular position is a revolving door at the NSC so it is impossible for him to have made any impact on future policy vis a vis the Congo. He founded Enough precisely because he was so ineffective at the NSC and State Department. Clinton did not “allow” either Rwanda or Uganda to invade. The implication here is that American government can control what Rwanda and Uganda do which is preposterous. They are sovereign nations, AS. Again, this reminds me of the “shot the gun” analogy in my original post. Arming their armies is not akin to a policy of destabilization. They are separate and distinct. More to the point is there is ZERO evidence of this as the expressed policy of America’s military and foreign policy apparatus.

3- Your claim on Darfur and the LRA is simply false. There is existing law that directs the Pentagon to direct military aid and loans to the governments of Rwanda and Uganda to assist in Darfur AND for Rwanda, Uganda, and Congo (via Africom) to snuff out the LRA. The former is all humanitarian (no oil fields in Darfur) and the other is related to anti-terrorism efforts. I am aware there is oil in the region where the LRA terrorizes the population but the US lost out to all the concessions in the region.

4- You are correct that Enough doesn’t hold the truth but like it or not they have built an infrastructure to pressure the American government on policy towards the Congo. If you don’t like this, fond your own group and lobby away. Everyone does it and it would be perfectly fine to do and would help ensure Washington pays more attention to the Congo more consistently which would be great for the Congolese. Really, the more the merrier. David Aronson raised good points that have now led to released aide to miners. In my view, however, the broader goals of Dodd Frank are critical to peace in the Eastern Congo.

5- I am aware that there is more to the Congo than the East and have travelled extensively throughout the nation. It is the position of Enough that the problems in the East are related to the general problem of governance in the Congo. But, again, they see regulating the trade in mineral as ONE way to get to the problem of governance. A tactic to a broader strategy, AS. As an analogy it is akin to America’s policy towards the Soviet Union in the 80’s. The goal was to destroy the Soviet Union. The tactic was Reagan’s increased military spending. Why? So that Soviet Union would do the same. The strategy was to push them to do so to such a degree that it ended up bankrupting the system. It did and the goal was accomplished. Are the other ways to compel better behavior out of Kinshasa? Ofcourse. What is Enough’s broader strategy? I don’t know. But I suspect its using the conflict mineral issue to force Kinshasa to finally deal with elements in its armed forces who continue to desire access to minerals. The hope is to ensure both governance reform and security reform which will have the effect of better overall governing in the East and an end to army-related violence, rape, and theft that plagues its people. Again, this is only my view on their strategy but I am not sure this is the case. What seems certain, however, is Enough and US policy officials are aware that Kabila refuses to get tough because he fears these men and their abilities to raise militia’s against his regime. The recently release Wiki cables makes that clear. Here is one:http://wikileaks.org/cable/2009/10/09KINSHASA945.html

6- There are other non-Enough organizations working to ensure good elections. Enough, I assume, is not engaging in them because it might be seen as being partisan and hence would deny them access to the Congo.

7- We are in agreement about the real problem in the Congo, AS. Where I would disagree, and this is only my opinion, is that getting rid of Kabila alone will solve the governance problems. There are clear systemic problems with the Congo’s political system that leads to a truly vapid political class. The Presidency has too much power, the Assembly doesn’t have enough of it, and the courts are woefully underfunded. Kinshasa is a black hole of power which leads to such excessive fighting and jockeying for position. The private sector is weak and cannot absorb the ambitious in the Congo. Thus, a ton of reforms are needed to ensure power is divided at the center and, in my view, devolved to the provinces. By constantly dividing power and ensuring checks and balances you make men more honest and hold their ambitions in check. Until the Congolese figure this out, however, they will always be led by terrible, corrupt, and tyrannical leaders.

8- If you assumed that I assumed that you are Congolese that is my fault and please accept my apologies. Please also know that I don’t take claims made about my country lightly and, generally, believe it is important to try to make them based on facts. I realize this is a blog and people are allowed to state their opinions but when it comes to matters of government affairs my background and history really prefers we start with facts.

Melanie
I find this a dishonest exercise. You claim to have over 18 years as a lead staffer on the Senate Intelligence Committee in the United States Senate, and a security clearance but you have yet to come across any hard evidence to confirm the claims made by Congolese?
It’s what is in your best interest I guess.

Our company works with Congolese tribes to help them export without a dime going to conflict groups. Dodd-Frank has been disastrous for them.

Supporters are quoting the UN, large NGOs and other organizations who support the bill, but we are quoting chiefs, tribes and hundreds of thousands of locals on the ground who have been devastated by it. Doesn’t this say something very powerful to us?

I challenge the supporters to take a poll of those they are supposedly trying to protect. Of course they won’t, because the response would tell them that, while Dodd-Frank was well-meaning, it is an unmitigated disaster in practice. COCABI, COMIMPA and COMIDER represent 20,000 miners in the conflict area and 100,000 people affected by this legislation. They all say they’ve never even been contacted to see how this might affect them.

There are six regions from which Dodd-Frank minerals are mined, and only one of them has ever had anything to do with conflict. Dodd-Frank has put them all out of business before it is even enacted. The World Bank says it has negatively affected 10 million people in the Congo.

I’m was in Tanzania last week to help a chief export his coltan using a visible, well-documented process that ensures not a dime goes to conflict. That chief and his people will go hungry because the smelters, citing Dodd-Frank, have vanished. The chief is devastated, as are the nearly 1 million honest people who find their meager livelihoods destroyed by this over-reaching act.

The issue with Dodd-Frank is that it is a nuclear option that demonizes minerals instead of criminals. It’s no different than burning down every house in town to stop a burglar from stealing, who will simply steal from somewhere else. Ludicrous.

Dodd-Frank has burned down the entire mining industry in the Congo in hopes that their scorched earth policy will catch a militia group in its path. They are willing to take down every innocent man, woman, and child in the Congo who live off mining. Such massive collateral damage is not acceptable under any circumstance.

Remove mining from the equation and the militia will exact its pound of flesh from the locals by other means. This should be handled by targeting militias, not mining. Dodd-Frank takes the route of universal collateral damage, which, before the bill is enacted, has already destroyed the livelihoods of the innocents who depend on it.